As a test, I'd suggest trying a SSD drive via USB 3.0.
I'd clone the current drive and place that copy on the SSD, and run the OS etc. from there. It would be interesting to see the results. I'd but it would be fast.

If it within a return period and if you can afford it, upgrade to the 1TB or 2TB model. The 1TB comes with 24GB SSD and the 2TB 128GB SSD, both Fusion models.

The 21.5" iMac uses a slower 5400 RPM drive, while the 27" uses a faster 7200 RPM. I don't know why it would be spinning a beachball though... the base 8GB RAM should be plenty. If there's a large mail file, it may be taking time to load everything.

The 21.5" iMac uses a slower 5400 RPM drive, while the 27" uses a faster 7200 RPM. I don't know why it would be spinning a beachball though... the base 8GB RAM should be plenty. If there's a large mail file, it may be taking time to load everything.

As a test, I'd suggest trying a SSD drive via USB 3.0.
I'd clone the current drive and place that copy on the SSD, and run the OS etc. from there. It would be interesting to see the results. I'd but it would be fast.

If it within a return period and if you can afford it, upgrade to the 1TB or 2TB model. The 1TB comes with 24GB SSD and the 2TB 128GB SSD, both Fusion models.

this is a terrible idea. will run slower than the internal HDD.
also did you buy the $1099 iMac or the $1299 iMac.
The $1099 iMac is pure junk and a complete rip off. its so slow, its pathetic.

I don't think the idea of buying all that stuff to test the internal HD is a good idea... the cost could be the difference in a level up if you're within the exchange period (to get some sort of SSD or Fusion setup).

this is a terrible idea. will run slower than the internal HDD.
also did you buy the $1099 iMac or the $1299 iMac.
The $1099 iMac is pure junk and a complete rip off. its so slow, its pathetic.

An USB 3.0 SSD will absolutely not run slower than an internal magnetic drive.
The $1099 iMac is actually none of those things that you used to describe it. It serves the needs of a huge segment of the population that doesn't need a huge workhorse and doesn't want to pay a huge sum of money for a desktop computer. I wouldn't recommend it for a power user, but that's merely a segment of the population.

"terrible idea...", I disagree. I've tested all THREE models of the iMac 27".
To me the 2TB Fusion drive model is the fastest, when it comes to Blackmagic Hard Drive speed test. However, the 1TB SATA drive unit, running the OS via an enclosed SSD, was virtually as fast as the 1TB Fusion drive. Again, I tested it.

The problem is this, like anything, if we had unlimited funds, we'd all get the highest spec computer\item. But, that isn't the case. So, if someone wanted to, they could buy the 1TB SATA or 1TB Fusion unit, and still run the OS via an external SSD. We all know SSD's on the market are MUCH cheaper that Apple are offering.

Lastly, users tend to have an external drive, of sorts, connected to the iMac for backups. So, why not connect an SSD, on a slower model iMac? Rhetorical...

Originally Posted by mayconvert

this is a terrible idea. will run slower than the internal HDD.
also did you buy the $1099 iMac or the $1299 iMac.
The $1099 iMac is pure junk and a complete rip off. its so slow, its pathetic.

An USB 3.0 SSD will absolutely not run slower than an internal magnetic drive.
The $1099 iMac is actually none of those things that you used to describe it. It serves the needs of a huge segment of the population that doesn't need a huge workhorse and doesn't want to pay a huge sum of money for a desktop computer. I wouldn't recommend it for a power user, but that's merely a segment of the population.

He told the guy to clone his internal HDD and boot and run his OS from a USB 3 external HDD all the time.
That IS a terrible idea and yes it WILL be slower than the internal. USB 3 can not read and write data at the same time.

He told the guy to clone his internal HDD and boot and run his OS from a USB 3 external HDD all the time.
That IS a terrible idea and yes it WILL be slower than the internal. USB 3 can not read and write data at the same time.

No, he said external SSD, not HDD. Bold added for emphasis.

Originally Posted by afctee

As a test, I'd suggest trying a SSD drive via USB 3.0.
I'd clone the current drive and place that copy on the SSD, and run the OS etc. from there. It would be interesting to see the results. I'd but it would be fast.